Handbook of Information Security Management
(Publisher: CRC Press LLC)
Author(s): Hal Tipton and Micki Krause, Consulting Editors
ISBN: 0849399475
Publication Date: 01/01/98

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

Hardware and Software Robustness

Some systems and technologies that are very effective with small- to medium-sized user data bases have a performance that is less than acceptable with large data bases. Problems that occur include system slowdown and accuracy degradation. Some biometric system users have had to discard their systems and start over because their organizations became more successful, grew faster than anticipated, and the old system could not handle the growth. If they hope to “grow” their original system with the organization, system managers should at least double the most optimistic growth estimate and plan for a system capable of handling that load.

Another consideration is hardware capability to withstand extended usage under the conditions expected. An example is the early signature dynamics systems, which performed adequately during testing and early fielding periods. However, the pen and stylus sensors used to detect stroke direction, speed, and pressure were very tiny and sensitive. After months or a year of normal public use, the system performance had deteriorated to the point that the systems were no longer effective identifiers.

Maintenance Requirements

Some sensors and systems have required very high levels of preventive maintenance or diagnostics and adjustment to continue effective operations. Under certain operating and user conditions (e.g., dusty areas or with frequent users of hand lotions or creams), some fingerprint sensors needed cleaning as frequently as every day to prevent deterioration of accuracy. Other systems demanded weekly or monthly connection of diagnostic equipment, evaluation of performance parameters, and careful adjustment to retain productive performance. These human interventions not only disrupt the normal security process, but significantly increase operational costs.

Susceptibility to Sabotage

Systems with data acquisition sensors on pedestals protruding far out from walls or with many moving parts are often susceptible to sabotage or disabling damage. Spinning floor polisher handles or hammers projecting out of pockets can unobtrusively or accidentally affect sensors. These incidents have most frequently occurred when there was widespread user or union resistance to the biometric system.

Perceived Health Maladies Due to Usage

As new systems and technologies were developed and public sensitivity to new viruses and diseases such as AIDS, Ebola, and E. coli increased by orders of magnitude, acceptability became a more important issue. Perceptions of possible organ damage and potential spread of disease from biometric system usage ultimately had such a devastating affect on sales of one system that it had to be totally redesigned. Though thousands of the original units had been successfully fielded, whether the newly packaged technology regains popularity or even survives remains to be seen. All of this occurred without even one documented allegation of a single user becoming sick or injured as a result of system utilization.

Many of the highly contagious diseases recently publicized can be spread by simple contact with a contaminated surface. As biometric systems achieve wider market penetration in many applications, user numbers are growing logarithmically. There are developing indications that users are becoming increasingly sensitive about systems and technologies that require firm physical contact for acquisition of the biometric data.

Private Information Made Available to Management

Certain health events can cause changes in the blood vessel pattern (i.e., retina) inside the eyeball. These include diabetes and strokes. Allegations have been made that the retina-based biometric system enables management to improperly obtain health information that may be used to the detriment of system users. The scenario begins with the system failing to identify a routine user. The user is easily authenticated and re-enrolled. As a result, management will allegedly note the re-enrollment report and conclude that this user had a minor health incident (minor because the user is present the next working day). In anticipation that this employee’s next health event could cause major medical cost, management might find (or create) a reason for termination. Despite the fact that there is no recorded case of actual occurrence of this alleged scenario, this folklore continues to be heard within the biometric industry.

Skill and Cooperation Required to Use the System

The performance of some biometric systems is greatly dependent on the skill or careful cooperation of the subject in using the system. Though there is an element of this factor required for data acquisition positioning for all biometric systems, it is generally attributed to the “what we do” type of systems.

BENEFITS OF BIOMETRIC IDENTIFICATION AS COMPARED WITH CARD SYSTEMS

Biometric identifying verification systems control people. If the person with the correct hand, eye, face, signature, or voice is not present, the identification and verification cannot take place and the desired action (i.e., portal passage, data, or resource access) does not occur.

As has been demonstrated many times, adversaries and criminals obtain and successfully use access cards, even those that require the addition of a PIN. This is because these systems control only pieces of plastic (and sometimes information), rather than people. Real asset and resource protection can only be accomplished by people, not cards and information, because unauthorized persons can (and do) obtain the cards and information.

Further, life-cycle costs are significantly reduced because no card or PIN administration system or personnel are required. The authorized person does not lose physical characteristics (i.e., hands, face, eyes, signature, or voice), but cards and PINs are continuously lost, stolen, or forgotten. This is why card access systems require systems and people to administer, control, record, and issue (new) cards and PINs. Moreover, the cards are an expensive and recurring cost.

Card System Error Rates

The false accept rate is 100% when the access card is in the wrong hands, lost, or stolen. It is a false reject when the right card is swiped incorrectly or just does not activate the system. (Think about the number of times to retry hotel room access cards to get the door to unlock.) Actually, it is also a false reject when a card is forgotten and that person cannot get through the door.

Previous | Table of Contents | Next